Fram Ultra no longer 99% @ 20 microns?

[newtoncd8]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but the Fram site no longer lists the Ultra as capable of 99% @ 20 microns. The Tough Guard (99% @ 20 microns) and Extra Guard (95% @ 20 microns) data are both still listed. Omission on the Fram marketing team or has there been a change?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Temporary omission due to a mistake by web page people. Its still 99% at 20 microns, and 80% at 5 microns.

 

[The motor guy]

Don't do that Newton! You scared me!

 

[UncleDave]

I hope so. I have a small stash of them and Id be bummed to learn my new ones aren't the equivalent of the old ones, or that the old ones did not meet spec that was published prior. It's been 5 days since zee06 contacted them and they told him it was an omission. UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Let me make a call to "corporate" ... Still shows 99+% (but no micron size) in this snap-shot but looks like the details are missing on the page for the Ultra. Sure it's just an oversight when they revamped the website.

 

[ziggy]

Is the tough guard,also rated,for 80% @ 5 um?

 

[wemay]

Why is it a 'mistake' when Fram omits but not when others do...?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: wemay

Why is it a 'mistake' when Fram omits but not when others do...?

Because before Fram updated their website a week or two ago, they listed detailed ISO 4548-12 efficiency numbers for all their oil filters. They still do on the new website for the EG and TG, but not for the Ultra ... so it's an oversight screw-up by the web guys.

 

[JeepWJ19]

More people need to join the TG dark side.

 

[Bud]

I won't be able to sleep just thinking about this.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: wemay

Why is it a 'mistake' when Fram omits but not when others do...?

Because before Fram updated their website a week or two ago, they listed detailed ISO 4548-12 efficiency numbers for all their oil filters. They still do on the new website for the EG and TG, but not for the Ultra ... so it's an oversight screw-up by the web guys.

That would be a logical train of thought, but just like i do with every other brand, If it isn't posted, it isn't so, and i like Fram Ultra as you can see in my sig.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: wemay

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: wemay

Why is it a 'mistake' when Fram omits but not when others do...?

Because before Fram updated their website a week or two ago, they listed detailed ISO 4548-12 efficiency numbers for all their oil filters. They still do on the new website for the EG and TG, but not for the Ultra ... so it's an oversight screw-up by the web guys.

That would be a logical train of thought, but just like i do with every other brand, If it isn't posted, it isn't so, and i like Fram Ultra as you can see in my sig.

Got to their website and hit the little "chat" pop-up in the lower RH corner and ask them why the efficiency specs are now missing on the Ultra.

 

[wemay]

<span style="font-weight: bold">Done</span>. It's actually a "leave a message" prompt and they'll email back a response.

 

[newtoncd8]

Originally Posted By: wemay

Why is it a 'mistake' when Fram omits but not when others do...?

I assume that is for me. When the website has it listed for years and then it is removed, you don't find that of interest? Meanwhile, the other filter offerings still have the data listed. BTW, I got a note from Fram: "The Ultra Synthetic oil filters are still 99%+ efficient at 20 microns, the product has not changed. It appears to be a website error that it is no longer listed. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I will pass this information on to our website developer so they can have this corrected as soon as possible."

 

[CharlieBauer]

I remember reading MotorKing post here that the 20,000 mile filter is unchanged apart from the 20,000 mile claim. They also dropped the "or 1 year" statement.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: ziggy

Is the tough guard,also rated,for 80% @ 5 um?

No, very doubtful. The 80% at 5 micron for the Ultra is because of depth filtering, a very thick, 2-ply media using synthetic fibers. The TG has cellulose fibers with some glass fibers and is thinner.

 

[goodtimes]

There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say [email protected] microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that. Caused a whole lot of gladiator action on here too the 98.7. FWIW based on tech email or whatever it was, I propose the Ultra is [email protected] and the TG is fram officially stated [email protected] I don't think it makes any difference in real use. I'm sure they will have it stated again the 99+, be patient all Ultra fans. IMHO and all that.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say [email protected] microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that. Caused a whole lot of gladiator action on here too the 98.7. FWIW based on tech email or whatever it was, I propose the Ultra is [email protected] and the TG is fram officially stated [email protected] I don't think it makes any difference in real use. I'm sure they will have it stated again the 99+, be patient all Ultra fans. IMHO and all that.

99% at 20 microns cannot be a roundup from 98.7% if the filter is also 99% at 16 microns. 98.7% refers to beta 75 which is a required efficiency ratio in the ISO test. As is beta 2, 10, 20, 200, 1000 which equate to 50%, 90%, 95%, 99.5% and 99.9%

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say [email protected] microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that.

FYI ... for high efficiency filters, ISO 4548-12 allows extrapolation above a measured efficiency of 98.7%.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say [email protected] microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that. Caused a whole lot of gladiator action on here too the 98.7. FWIW based on tech email or whatever it was, I propose the Ultra is [email protected] and the TG is fram officially stated [email protected] I don't think it makes any difference in real use. I'm sure they will have it stated again the 99+, be patient all Ultra fans. IMHO and all that.

99% at 20 microns cannot be a roundup from 98.7% if the filter is also 99% at 16 microns.

I think what goodtimes is saying is since Fram shows 99%+ at 20 microns then Fram is saying it's actually 99% @ 16 microns, but they use 99%+ with 20u because most companies use 20u instead of 16u to somewhat "standardize" the ISO 4548-12 test results.